How many people really need a 36M DSLR?

[golf1982]

The point is 1% f your photos need high resolution
But probably 20% or more of your photos need good high ISO performance...

This extends to the fact that most people need only 8M pixels
And only very very few people need 36M

Is it more sensible for these people to shoot using digital back
And let Nikon make a low noise 16M DSLR which is useful for most people?

If you are so arrogant and stupid as to believe that you know better what features other photographers, who you have never even met, would benefit from your opinion is not worth listing to.

 

[mlewan]

While you Full HD TV only needs 2M
even a 4K TV only needs 8M

I think a 16-18M is already more than enough......

I would prefer Canon / Nikon release 12M FF DSLR with superior IQ / ISO performance

While I agree that it would be nicer to get superior IQ / ISO performance, I still think 36M would be useful for anyone with any photo editing software that allows cropping.

If the reach of the zoom is not good enough, you can still crop and print a small detail.

You can even imagine taking several pictures at the same time. Imagine a big crowd, like a demonstration or a symphony concert. You take one picture of the whole crowd, and then you go home and crop out the details and print them separately.

--
http://photophindings.blogspot.com/
http://picasaweb.google.com/nmlewan

 

[goshigoo]

It is not worth to listen to someone who attacks others using " arrogant and stupid"

 

[harold1968]

required for cropping
required for detail PP (Most PP algorithms work better with more detail)
etc.

16mm does not cut it anymore, sorry

 

[goshigoo]

There are already many rooms for cropping with a 16M pic

 

[Robin Casady]

That's ok if you don't get my points
Most people do not buy Toyota for high performance if you see what I mean

I see that if you drive a Toyota Camry you couldn't imagine how anyone would need anything else.

That is interesting if think viewing in TV does not need a good camera
What kind of TV do you have? I will understand if you are still using CRT

I thought I'd turn your logic around on you. You said a TV only takes 2 MP. An iPhone 4Gs is 8 MP, so you can crop instead of using different lenses. The color rendering of a 55" LCD TV doesn't come close to Nikon DSLR, quality inkjet print, or even calibrated monitor quality. Making the argument that a TV is the target venue for Nikon DSLR output shows very little understanding of high quality photography.
--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

 

[Lance B]

While you Full HD TV only needs 2M
even a 4K TV only needs 8M

I think a 16-18M is already more than enough......

I would prefer Canon / Nikon release 12M FF DSLR with superior IQ / ISO performance

OK, the fact is, I use a D7000 for reach and my D700 for all other reasons. If I had a 36Mp D800, then my D7000 becomes redundant and that is a GOOD thing. The pixel density of the D800 would be the same as the D7000, and therefore, cropping the D800 essentially is the same as having a D7000 for reach. I now no longer need a D7000 for birding etc and can remove it from my camera bag.

So, YES, I would love a D800 which has the same high ISO ability of the D700 yet with the DR and pixel density of the D7000. There just isn't ANY downside to a system like that.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[goshigoo]

I cannot take a photo with shallow depth of field using iPhone

 

[KSV]

So, YES, I would love a D800 which has the same high ISO ability of the D700 yet with the DR and pixel density of the D7000. There just isn't ANY downside to a system like that.

12MP sensor based on the same technology will do better ISO and may do better DR. So if they can do 36MP with D700 ISO ability, then they can do 12MP with far superior ISO ability. How much difference and how valuable it for you is debatable of course. I would vote for ISO without any hesitation - I fail to see any use of more then 12MP for what I do.

 

[vFunct]

The point is 1% f your photos need high resolution
But probably 20% or more of your photos need good high ISO performance...

This extends to the fact that most people need only 8M pixels
And only very very few people need 36M

Is it more sensible for these people to shoot using digital back
And let Nikon make a low noise 16M DSLR which is useful for most people?

If you are so arrogant and stupid as to believe that you know better what features other photographers, who you have never even met, would benefit from your opinion is not worth listing to.

Too bad he's right.

The fact is, he doesn't actually sell his prints, since it's unmarketable. He can only make the prints for himself, as no one else cares for his 36mp prints.

There are very few people in this world that actually have a NEED for 36 mp.

We need to be MORE arrogant, not less. Let's encourage arrogance, not discourage it.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

While you Full HD TV only needs 2M
even a 4K TV only needs 8M

I think a 16-18M is already more than enough......

I would prefer Canon / Nikon release 12M FF DSLR with superior IQ / ISO performance

Who cares about video screens? I want the resolution for large, high quality prints. I'm not sure what HD screens have to do with anything.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

The point is 1% f your photos need high resolution
But probably 20% or more of your photos need good high ISO performance...

This extends to the fact that most people need only 8M pixels
And only very very few people need 36M

Is it more sensible for these people to shoot using digital back
And let Nikon make a low noise 16M DSLR which is useful for most people?

Stop telling everyone what they need you blowhard. I need more rez 80% of the time...not 1%. And stop telling us what "most people" need. Most people need cell phone camera because most people never make a print.

Go troll elsewhere.....you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Mr Gadget]

If the D800 can deliver as good ISO performance as a D700 with the same pixel pitch as the D7000 then this would become a do everything for me camera, although I would perfer the better weather sealing and durability of a full size pro camera, i.e. D1-4. It would be especially nice if the D800 uses the D4 autofocus system with the 91k seperate sensor for focussing. It will be interesting to see how the D800 specs, and price work out.
--
Conrad
---------------------------------------------------
Show Low, Arizona

 

[goshigoo]

Please get a medium format with 80M+ pixel and stop yelling

 

[michaeladawson]

I'm tired of the "I only do X so we only need Y MP cameras". Now we apparently have a new one. The OP only views their photos on a video screen so nobody needs more than 8 MP. Good for the OP.

The self centered opinions that everyone else only needs the camera that you want is growing old. I don't want video so cameras should come without it. I don't need GPS so cameras shouldn't have it built in.

The fact is, technology marches on. Computers come with far more capability than most people need. Good luck finding a car without air-conditioning, even though you may not want or need it. And the same with cameras. Today, good luck finding a 6 MP camera even if that's all you need. In a couple of years good luck finding a 12 MP camera. I'll bet that in 10 years you'll be hard pressed to find a 16 MP model.

Camera companies are not going to make 20 different models so that everyone can have exactly the camera they want with only the features they want. You get a few models that have to cover the needs and wants of a wider audience. Deal with it.
--
Mike Dawson

 

[mdg137]

Frankly, I dont NEED 36MP, but I WANT 36MP-- Ive been printing at 30x40 pretty regularly, and as large as 40x60-- mostly stitched images coming in at around 50MP.

The less stitching I have to do, the better.
--
http://www.mdgfineart.com

 

[vin 13]

There isn't one, unless you count the Leica S2, yet photographers continue to make money / have fun. If / when 36MP becomes the standard, there will be people who will 'need' 72MP etc. etc.

 

[eNo]

I'm not so presumptious as to make believe that's the case for other photographers. Studio and large, high quality landscape shooters will benefit from the high resolution. So will people that don't want to carry a DX crop body to get the extra reach for things like wildlife: they can just get that from a single FX body by cropping it (36MP cropped = 18MP if I'm doing the math right).
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seeking the heart and spirit in each image



Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/

 

[eNo]

So, YES, I would love a D800 which has the same high ISO ability of the D700 yet with the DR and pixel density of the D7000. There just isn't ANY downside to a system like that.

12MP sensor based on the same technology will do better ISO and may do better DR. So if they can do 36MP with D700 ISO ability, then they can do 12MP with far superior ISO ability. How much difference and how valuable it for you is debatable of course. I would vote for ISO without any hesitation - I fail to see any use of more then 12MP for what I do.

You make a good point... up to a point. Most of these "larger pixels do better with noise" arguments ignore the advantages that averaging with higher megapixel samples have for noise performance. Remember -- always remember -- that images are not viewed a pixel at a time. In that sense, what a single pixel is doing isn't as relevant as what all the pixels in the aggregate are doing together to capture an image. The argument from the ridiculous would point out that if larger pixels are always better, then a sensor with just 1 pixel that covers the entire sensor area must be better than a 12MP sensor. Why aren't we asking Nikon to make us one of those?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seeking the heart and spirit in each image



Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/

 

[eNo]

If the D800 can deliver as good ISO performance as a D700 with the same pixel pitch as the D7000 then this would become a do everything for me camera, although I would perfer the better weather sealing and durability of a full size pro camera, i.e. D1-4. It would be especially nice if the D800 uses the D4 autofocus system with the 91k seperate sensor for focussing. It will be interesting to see how the D800 specs, and price work out.

But what if it can only match D7000 performance? That's the more likely scenario, since it would have the same pixel density. Would that be good enough? Based on my experience shooting the D7000 and D700 side-by-side, I think that for most people it would be -- whether they admit that or not is a separate matter. This would come with the added advantage that a higher megapixel count has on perceived noise (as opposed to the less useful per-pixel noise). As I pointed out in another response to this thread, we view images in the aggregate, and at the same print/display size, the overall image will average out the noise when a larger sample size (more megapixels) is used to capture the same (equivalently) amount of light over the entire sensor area .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seeking the heart and spirit in each image



Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/